I enjoyed reporter Derek Kutzer’s article about the September 3 Town Council meeting, published in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN. Mr. Kutzer and I often attend, and report on, the same Council meetings, but have slightly different reporting styles. So it’s fun to compare our journalistic approaches.
Of course, my own versions are published as “Opinions”, whereas Mr. Kutzer typically sticks to a “Just the facts, Ma’am” trajectory.
His September 5 SUN article focused on a decision by the Council to pursue grants for the purchase of a 4-acre riverfront parcel adjacent to the Highway 160-Highway 84 intersection, just east of downtown. The property had been the home to Bob’s L.P. — lo, these many years — but that company recently went out of business. Basin Co-op is currently selling propane there.
James Dickhoff, the Town’s director of Community Development, introduced the topic at the meeting, and suggested that public surveys conducted by the Town in past years show a “community desire to see more public river access.” The Town conducts citizen surveys occasionally, asking questions like, “Do you support the development of more river access?”… to which respondents typically respond, “Support strongly” or “Support somewhat”.
We don’t always know, however, exactly which people are responding. Mostly people who own rubber rafts? Or who have friends with rubber rafts? Or who work at businesses that sell guided trips in rubber rafts?
Of course, a more difficult question for the surveyed public to answer is, “Do you support the development of more river access, if it means money will be diverted from street maintenance?”
More about that question in Part Two.
Here’s the map of the riverfront property, as it might be developed.
According to Mr. Dickhoff, the Town will be applying for two state grants, worth perhaps $800,000, and then will use perhaps $50,000 of local funding for the purchase and clean-up of the parcel. This amount does not include the total cost of making the property into a functional public park as shown in the published drawings.
Mr. Dickhoff: “The River Corridor Master Plan indicated this specific lot as an opportunity for potential river access to the river. Currently, we do not have any formal river access on this side of town. It’s all private property, and is generally in jeopardy of being lost, as some of those properties are for sale.”
This is actually misinformation, coming from Mr. Dickhoff. Sadly enough. But perhaps the Town Council prefers misinformation, when it gives them license to spend tax money on recreational amenities?
Mr. Dickhoff is correct in saying that there is “no formal access” on the east side of town. But he’s definitely wrong that “it’s all private property.”
Here’s a map of the east side of town, from the County website, showing in pink the riverfront and other property already owned by the Town government:
By my calculations (and not Mr. Dickhoff’s calculations) the Town government already owns in excess of 7 acres of accessible prime waterfront property that could be used for a future boat ramp. (My map above assumes that the ‘street rights-of-way’ shown on the map also belong to the Town, but that is not confirmed by the County version of the map.)
In the interests of good journalism, SUN reporter Kutzer reported on this misinformation coming from Mr. Dickhoff.
[Mr. Dickhoff] added that, “currently, we don’t have any formal public access on this side [the East End] of town. It’s all private property.”
He explained that most current business owners in the East End’s River Center allow the public to enter the river near their businesses, but that if these properties were ever sold, these access points could be “in jeopardy of being lost.”
But, during the public comment section of the discussion, resident Bill Hudson questioned Dickhoff ’s notion that access behind the River Center is all private property.
“I don’t know if I’m seeing something that I’m not seeing, or not seeing something that I am seeing, but I’m looking at the County Assessor’s map of property ownership and it shows that we [the Town] own four acres behind the River Center,” he said. “We just heard from Mr. Dickhoff that the Town doesn’t own the property behind the River Center …I don’t understand why that statement was made … We own four acres…”
Reporter Kutzer wrote further that, following an executive session, where the Council debated whether to enter into negotiations to purchase the BOB’s L.P. property, Mr. Dickhoff admitted that he had misled the Council, noting that the Town does, in fact, own four acres located directly behind the River Center. (Mr. Dickhoff didn’t mention the numerous acres of other riverfront property owned by the Town.)
The Town government is far and away one of the wealthiest businesses in Pagosa Springs, and with constant access to state grants combined with millions of annual dollars in sales tax and lodgers tax, the Town has the ability to snap up whatever riverfront property comes onto the market. In one sense, this means that the public gets potential access to more and more riverfront activities. It also means the sellers of property have the opportunity to negotiate with a very wealthy purchaser.
Additionally, it means that private businesses — smaller businesses who must pay their own way — are deprived of those opportunities to locate on the river.
I understand that the weekly SUN has limited space for news stories, and although I appreciated Mr. Kutzer’s coverage of the September 3 meeting, he didn’t include some comments at the very start of the meeting, directly related to the proposed Bob’s L.P. purchase, offered by long-time resident Eddie Archuleta.
“What’s the deal with this property you’re trying to buy down by the Circle K?” (Mr. Archuleta is here referring to the Everyday gas station, which many years ago was a Circle K.) “Why do you need to buy a piece of junk like that?” (The site is, in fact, not terribly attractive at the moment…)
